Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Philosophy is not a science, just as a mother is not a child. Because out of philosophy came all the other sciences. The sciences study the world through models and Philosophy deals with fundamental knowledge and reality. Science and philosophy are not in competition with each other. They are like two curves that run parallel to each other, occasionally crossing each other.

All Skodas are cars, but not all cars are Skodas. So, all sciences are philosophies but not all philosophies are scientific. Since by its definition a philosophy is a mechanism or syntax by which to define or explain the universe (or part thereof), the differentiation between philosophies is the discipline which governs it. Astrology and astronomy are two philosophies with very different disciplines, thus employing very different methodologies.

Quote from SamH :

All Skodas are cars, but not all cars are Skodas. So, all sciences are philosophies but not all philosophies are scientific. Since by its definition a philosophy is a mechanism or syntax by which to define or explain the universe (or part thereof), the differentiation between philosophies is the discipline which governs it. Astrology and astronomy are two philosophies with very different disciplines, thus employing very different methodologies.

You can think that way if you want. As I said earlier, there are many definitions of what is philosophy and what is science and there are no generally accepted ones. But the academic philosophical mainstream doesn't think the way you do. So you started doing philosophy here All I did was simply describe the genesis and roles of philosophy and science from mainstream positions.

In my opinion, it is not practical to call sciences philosophies, firstly because of different methodology. Secondly, because of the different fields of study. Thirdly, because of the problem of demarcation. What is the difference between philosophy and science if science is philosophy? You need to give definitions.

Perhaps you might agree that science is the philosophy of experimentation and observation?

It's not so important to me to distinguish science from philosophy (because I do think they're inextricably linked) as it is to distinguish science from ideology (which I think in some fundamental ways exist in opposition). Perhaps my insistence on describing science as a philosophy is not helpful in this regard.

Quote from SamH :

Perhaps you might agree that science is the philosophy of experimentation and observation?

It's not so important to me to distinguish science from philosophy (because I do think they're inextricably linked) as it is to distinguish science from ideology (which I think in some fundamental ways exist in opposition). Perhaps my insistence on describing science as a philosophy is not helpful in this regard.

In fact, it is quite possible that these differentiations do not depend on you.

Childish

Quote from SamH :

Perhaps you might agree that science is the philosophy of experimentation and observation?

No. I've already summarised my position, it's not much different from the mainstream. But mixing idialogy, science and philosophy into one is not a productive way of looking at things.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

In fact, it is quite possible that these differentiations do not depend on you.

Then who do they depend on and why?

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

No. I've already summarised my position, it's not much different from the mainstream. But mixing idialogy, science and philosophy into one is not a productive way of looking at things.

I'm sure the problem is my failure to communicate properly. I'm not seeking to merge them into one, I'm trying to juxtapose them appropriately relative to each other. We may disagree with how they are placed, but the last thing I wish to do is merge them into one.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Then who do they depend on and why?

Words and other concepts are the basis of language and thinking. Their meanings must be common. Otherwise, we fall into confusion. This is one of the meanings of the myth of the Tower of Babel, for example.

Quote from SamH :

Childish

I had missed this gem. There, for example, we can't even distinguish what you don't understand? The words of others? Or the one you use. You end up saying things that only make sense to you. Because they escape common sense. I seem to have already told you (kindly) that your speech was confused.
Each of your interventions confirms this a little more. Besides, you admit it yourself.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Words and other concepts are the basis of language and thinking. Their meanings must be common. Otherwise, we fall into confusion. This is one of the meanings of the myth of the Tower of Babel, for example.

omg..I don't understand the habit of such answers to questions. I see less and less point in asking you questions.😔
Do you know the difference between what should be and what is?

In your answer to SamH you say what is, I ask you what is, and you answer what should be.
I.e. you are not answering the question. As usual.

Why not just give a straight answer? WHY??

Quote from SamH :

I'm sure the problem is my failure to communicate properly. I'm not seeking to merge them into one, I'm trying to juxtapose them appropriately relative to each other. We may disagree with how they are placed, but the last thing I wish to do is merge them into one.

Then maybe I didn't understand what you were saying.
There is an aspect of philosophy in science, this is indisputable, for example in scientific method has philosophical concepts of verification and falsification along with Occam's razor.
Do you think that makes science a philosophy?

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

I had missed this gem. There, for example, we can't even distinguish what you don't understand? The words of others? Or the one you use. You end up saying things that only make sense to you. Because they escape common sense. I seem to have already told you (kindly) that your speech was confused.
Each of your interventions confirms this a little more. Besides, you admit it yourself.

Then let me be as precise as possible. I am interested in a discussion wherein participants can extend their knowledge and understanding - including mine.

This is not your premise or goal. You are only here to inject confusion and conflation, and you do so obviously, rudely and in bad faith. I am not interested in conversing on that level.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

omg..I don't understand the habit of such answers to questions. I see less and less point in asking you questions.😔
Do you know the difference between what should be and what is?

In your answer to SamH you say what is, I ask you what is, and you answer what should be.
I.e. you are not answering the question. As usual.

Why not just give a straight answer? WHY??

It's not very difficult to understand. One day, in a specific cultural environment (a country, a scientific discipline, a political thought, a philosophy, etc.) we name a thing by a word or we define it by a concept. Then, everyone uses the word or concept in accordance with its meaning and/or definition. It's trivial, but that's how it is. I don't see what can resist understanding?

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

It's not very difficult to understand. One day, in a specific cultural environment (a country, a scientific discipline, a political thought, a philosophy, etc.) we name a thing by a word or we define it by a concept. Then, everyone uses the word or concept in accordance with its meaning and/or definition. It's trivial, but that's how it is. I don't see what can resist understanding?

What Are you trolling me or something? I refuse to believe you're being serious.
I don't want to think badly of your intelligence, so I'll just hope for a joke. Same thing in a few posts from you.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Then maybe I didn't understand what you were saying.
There is an aspect of philosophy in science, this is indisputable, for example in scientific method has philosophical concepts of verification and falsification along with Occam's razor.
Do you think that makes science a philosophy?

Kinda, maybe? Science was originally (maybe 2K years ago) known as "natural philosophy". So at its heart and for a long time, science and philosophy had at least synonymity. With the "recent" advent of the enlightenment, physical science (or "physics"?) as a philosophy distinguish itself greatly from other philosophies, with enormous changes to its discipline, the development of the scientific method and so on. But it is still derived in (and has a long history of) the principle of seeking to find a truthful way to describe reality, which is a principle it shares with all other philosophies. You yourself said "mother and child", and this I guess is the same as I'm saying. Maybe I'm just saying it badly.

Quote from SamH :

Then let me be as precise as possible. I am interested in a discussion wherein participants can extend their knowledge and understanding - including mine.

This is not your premise or goal. You are only here to inject confusion and conflation, and you do so obviously, rudely and in bad faith. I am not interested in conversing on that level.

What I obviously did was to sort out your assertions and demonstrate how they were incapable of calling into question the current scientific consensus on the climate issue. Then I noted some of your more serious confusions. No. Science is not a philosophy. And I am fully equipped to confirm this to you.
I understand that this upsets you. But the facts and your words demonstrate by themselves that it is you who are in the amalgamation (between ideology, science and philosophy, for example).

Avraham, as I said, you are a bad faith actor. You claim to have done things you didn't do, say nothing at all, or say nothing of any substance, or say things without an ounce of truth. And so I'm not interested any more in what you say. You're trolling the thread.

Quote from SamH :

Kinda, maybe? Science was originally (maybe 2K years ago) known as "natural philosophy". So at its heart and for a long time, science and philosophy had at least synonymity. With the "recent" advent of the enlightenment, physical science (or "physics"?) as a philosophy distinguish itself greatly from other philosophies, with enormous changes to its discipline, the development of the scientific method and so on. But it is still derived in (and has a long history of) the principle of seeking to find a truthful way to describe reality, which is a principle it shares with all other philosophies. You yourself said "mother and child", and this I guess is the same as I'm saying. Maybe I'm just saying it badly.

Well, that's a much clearer answer for me. We're talking about the same thing, but we're just making different conclusions. I see what you mean, but imao just because one comes from the other doesn't make it the same. About physics, if you mean Aristotle's physics, it is very different from today's physics, Aristotle talked about the 4 elements of which the world is made. He tried to talk about things like gravity and rectilinear motion, but he was fundamentally wrong in many aspects.
He was just trying to learn about the world through observation and drawing his own conclusions about it.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Then who do they depend on and why?

You ask me "who" it depends on? From which person or group of people? What do you want me to answer?
If you ask me "what" it depends on, it's different. But it is not what you asking for ?

I know my level of English is not very good. Did I misunderstand?

Quote from SamH :

Avraham, as I said, you are a bad faith actor. You claim to have done things you didn't do, say nothing at all, or say nothing of any substance, or say things without an ounce of truth. And so I'm not interested any more in what you say. You're trolling the thread.

I don't have time to point out all the enormous nonsense that you say with remarkable aplomb. Here's just the last one.

Quote from SamH :

Science IS a philosophy. Philosophy is a way of examining existence, pursuant to truth.

You are not eqipped to have this discussion. This is why we are at an impasse. You do not understand science or its purpose.

QED.

And it’s me who’s in bad faith? Ridiculous.
I'll let you have fun. I have more serious things to do.

Okay, let's say you don't understand...

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

You ask me "who" it depends on? From which person or group of people? What do you want me to answer?
If you ask me "what" it depends on, it's different. But it is not what you asking for ?

I know my level of English is not very good. Did I misunderstand?

Why are you asking me?

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

In fact, it is quite possible that these differentiations do not depend on you.

I'm asking because of your statement. I don't think so at all. Speaking of philosophical questions and definitions you're saying it's "do not depend on him" I don't know what you mean, that's why I'm asking the question. "Then who does it depend on?" You claim this "do not depend on him" so you should have an opinion on who it depends on.

In my opinion, it is up to each individual to decide what definition to follow regarding broad concepts (like science or philosophy). If the position is consistent and makes sense then there's no problem here. There are no such things as common meanings on broad concepts, if we are not talking about highly specialized terminology. Whether it should or shouldn't be is a different question. We're talking about how it happens in the real world.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

He was just trying to learn about the world through observation and drawing his own conclusions about it.

Yes indeed. This is what has continuity through the ages.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

In my opinion, it is up to each individual to decide what definition to follow regarding broad concepts (like science or philosophy). If the position is consistent and makes sense then there's no problem here. There are no such things as common meanings on broad concepts, if we are not talking about highly specialized terminology. Whether it should or shouldn't be is a different question. We're talking about how it happens in the real world.

Choose one definition over another. Yes. But when they exist. No individual has the power to reassign a new meaning to common concepts (or at his peril).

Contemporary science and philosophy are distinguished in that all science has an object and a method and its purpose is to explain phenomena.
The method of philosophy is the reason and its objective is to apprehend the meaning. The two can never be confused! If there is a philosophy of science, there can be no science of philosophy.

Science sets goals, but it doesn’t make sense. Giving it meaning, means corrupting it. Science then becomes the alibi of ideology. And in no way a "philosophical science". It's silly.

To know how the semantics of terms have been redefined over time, we must question the history of concepts and ideas.

It is not for SamH to decide what science or philosophy is, nor even to confuse them. This will only make sense to him. That was the point of my joke.

Quote from SamH :

Avraham, as I said, you are a bad faith actor. You claim to have done things you didn't do, say nothing at all, or say nothing of any substance, or say things without an ounce of truth. And so I'm not interested any more in what you say. You're trolling the thread.

To make sure I understand correctly, is that what I didn't do? So what do you have to answer?

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Thank you for this clarification. I can tell you what bothers me in your speech. (I will tell you this without animosity. I specify this because my bad English does not allow me any subtlety. This caricatures my words and sometimes makes them more aggressive than they are, even incomprehensible . This not the idea here).

Your speech is coated in ideology and confusing. The arguments you present are very weak in scope, even scientifically insignificant.

However, these arguments are enough (for you) to discredit the scientific analysis of global warming, its causes and its effects. Whereas, to put it bluntly, your positioning has absolutely no scientific basis, at any level (referential or conceptual) purposes.

Whether global warming began (or not) before the industrial era is irrelevant (current warming began 15,000 years ago). Natural cycles exist and are known (I refer you here to Fournier's analyses). Demonstrating that the premises of global warming predate industrialization presents absolutely no challenge in invalidating the anthropogenic cause of warming.

In fact, the anthropogenic cause is not linked to the origin of warming but to its temporality. Pascal Richet's thesis, on which you seem to rely, also has flaws. Above all, its relevance is limited on the effects of human emissions on current warming.

The evolution of the climate is known to us through a quantity of reliable material elements which provide us with localized information on climatic epiphenomena, of which the Little Ice Age (which disappeared in the last version of your message) is only one example. These localized phenomena tell us nothing about the effects of current warming, its evolution or its effects.

Paleoclimate modelling improves our understanding of the mechanisms of climate change, which remains incomplete. But, again, this is irrelevant to this debate. Since the proof of the impact of human activities on global warming is mathematically demonstrated by modelling whose relevance is unrelated to the evolution of climatic cycles throughout history. The mathematical proof provided by the modeling is trivial. If we remove emissions of anthropogenic origin, there is no other warming than natural warming, which has in fact (you are right) never been problematic.

In short, I perfectly understand your ideological resistance regarding the impact of human activities on current warming, and I can understand it.

But what I see in your discourse is that science serves as your alibi without giving you in any way the means of demonstration. Your position therefore remains purely and simply ideological, and in no way scientific. (said with respect, of course )